Friday, December 26, 2014

It's Hard Being Loved...Charlie Hebdo Doc Laughing Outside Of History

Just
re-released in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, is Daniel
Leconte's It's Hard Being Loved by Jerks (C'est Dur D'être Aimé Par Des
Cons). The 2008 documentary follows the ultimately triumphant trial of
that French satirical newspaper, charged by the World Muslim League and
the Union of Islamic Organizations of France with defamation.

But
just how triumphant the publication turned out to be, is laced with
eerie irony in post mortem retrospect, as the grinning faces of the
cartoonist victors who brag on camera, are counted among the recently
assassinated. But not exactly unaware of that possibility, amid multiple
threats half a dozen years ago. And when challenged on camera if
mockery of an immigrant culture was worth risking their lives, the eager
reaction came off less as that of ardent social activists than danger
junkies. Intimating a bizarre, opposite sides of the same coin
connection between these extreme cartoonists, and the extremists in
pursuit.

Overloaded
with talking heads and under-furnished with any broad social context -
including the real difference between satirizing the power structure as
opposed to an oppressed people your own government has collaborated in
murdering in the millions - the documentary feigns impartiality by
tossing in a few challenging pundits from the opposite side of the
spectrum. Most prominently from eccentric civilian commentators joining
the heated circus atmosphere just outside the courtroom. And when one of
them is ejected from the building by security because 'you're bothering
people' by what seems like daring to air an opposing view, this telling
moment blatantly stifling free speech in a documentary supposedly
heralding free speech, is oddly tossed by the wayside along with the
unfortunate Muslim challenger.

So what remains here
when pared down to ideas rather than glorified individuals, includes
those many cartoonists and supporters living and dead, and celeb
defenders counting Francois Hollande, Holocaust filmmmaker Claude
Lanzmann, and Nicolas Sarkozy preferring to text in his sympathy - to
the defendants' dismay. And satirists - or sketch makers as they are
known by some of their adversaries in the Muslim world, preferring to
live contextually and conveniently outside of history.

Namely,
the contrasting notions of free speech and hate speech. And in effect,
anti-Muslim cartoons which further the dangerous discrimination against
the Muslim population in Europe - immigrant and native born alike. In
fact, unintentionally revealing itself in the film, are the most
prominent objections raised. That is, in the scary post-9/11 world, the
labeling of all Muslims as potential terrorists - in particular one
incendiary cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. And not the
typical petty pronouncement - that's it's all about showing Muhammad's
face. And speaking of faces, their objection to the anti-Semitic facial
characteristics - after all, many Muslims are indeed Semites as well.
Though once again ironically, anti-Semitic speech is prohibited in
France, but only if it pertains to the Jewish branch of Semites there.

Then
there's the film's chief talking head and Charlie Hebdo editor at the
time, Philippe Val, mouthing off repeatedly about free speech. Yet his
own unquestioned dubious rap sheet includes firing one of the magazine's
most prominent figures, Maurice Sine, for publishing a cartoon that
year about the marriage of Nicolas Sarkozy’s son, Jean, to a Jewish
retailing heiress. Which Val deemed anti-Semitic. ( Sine won a 40,000
Euro court judgment against Charlie Hebdo for wrongful termination). And
counting as well, longstanding charges of anti-Islam racism and Zionism
against Val. And added to this hypocrisy, another figure hastily
appearing ironically in the documentary, controversial French comedian
Dieudonne. Who has now been arrested along with dozens of others at the
moment in France, for exerting their free speech. But oppositional
speech the authorities don't want to hear spoken, namely not
unquestionably deifying Charlie Hebdo.

And meanwhile,
in no way coincidental crackdowns on freedom everywhere in Europe, in
reaction to the Charlie Hebdo assault. Which many believe, with
suspicions mounting, that this reactionary advancing of the security
state was the originally preemptive intent anyway. After all, didn't the
CIA and French intelligence meddling in the Middle East train and arm
the very assassins in question, in death squads to bring down governments in
the Middle East, the better to invade, occupy and loot their resources?
And while officially eroding civil liberties further, under the cloak
of terrorism alerts?

So in effect, were the Charlie
Hebdo assassinations somehow carried out by the CIA and their French
counterpart collaborators? If nothing else, food for thought for a very
different sort of publication.